Posted by: Wumpa Warrior
1. The DMR
Halo 2 and 3 are often dubbed as the best multiplayer games of the decade, and for good reason. Between these two fantastic games, the weapon sandbox stayed relatively the same. There were several tweaks, some new things like brute vehicles (Chopper <3) and equipment, but the weapon sandbox in both games is very close. This did a lot of good in multiplayer, because the veterans from Halo 2 had a much smaller change between games.
The problem with Halo: Reach, is that it had a very drastic change from Halo 3's weapons to Reach.I played a lot of Halo 2, quite a bit of Halo 3, and quite a bit of Reach, and I've never had a problem with the change of the sandbox from game to game aside from just how useless some of the weapons are, and that problem is only with the weapons in Reach. I also play almost all of my games with friends that I played with in Halo 2 over Xbox Live and I've never heard them complain about the sandbox. I just don't think that's really a significant part of the problem with Reach.
Posted by: Wumpa Warrior
The DMR is a hitscan weapon (instantly hits target the second you pull the trigger). The BR was not hitscan, and players had to lead their shots to be accurate at long range. This tends to break down the open maps with little or no cover, because I can shoot from teleporter to teleporter on Hemmorhage without having to lead my shots. This was never possible on Valhalla, Sandtrap, or any Halo 3 maps. Imagine if you could camp on the dune of Sandtrap and pick people off across the map! It would have broken the map completely!Again, I just don't see this as being part of the problem. You're literally the first person I've ever seen bring it up as a real issue. You're probably right about the hitscan but I can only see that having a positive effect. Makes sniping more difficult, and makes people have to be more cautious about moving out in the open; they have to keep an eye out for movement in the distance. I'm fine with having to lead my shots, that would actually take even more skill, but if we changed it back then it would just be the snipers killing off the same people who run out in the open and rush the enemy. It wouldn't change anything for the better. Two people (whoever's wielding the sniper rifles) would be getting all the kills that at this point is almost fair game for everybody. Not to mention that snipers would be even more difficult to kill, which is kind of ridiculous considering how easy it is to wreck people with the sniper rifle in Reach already.
Posted by: Wumpa Warrior
In Reach, a team can win the entire game without even thinking about power weapons. Why? The DMR. The DMR has infinite range, and can be aimed with some skill, across any map in matchmaking. It also tears through vehicles like tissue paper (another thing not present in H3). The DMR IS a power weapon. Give it to a well coordinated team, and it's an easy win as well.Why is all that such a bad thing to you? I like being able to spawn and not have to run for a power weapon just to survive. I like spawning with a competent weapon that I can actually have a chance against power-weapon users with. I think if the DMR was made any less powerful, power-weapons would be needed in order to win any game, and DMR users wouldn't be able to compete with them. You're making it sound like the sniper rifle and rocket launcher are suffering because of the DMR... Yeah, right. Rocket launchers are guaranteed-kills-with-little-skills and you don't have to be any better than average with the sniper in order to get sniper sprees on a regular basis. Sniping seems to take a little more skill in Halo Reach because of hitscan with the DMR, yet the sniper is still an easy weapon to kill with.
And DMR's don't tear vehicles apart because DMR's are overpowered, vehicles are torn apart by DMR's because vehicles are extremely weak in Reach.
Posted by: Wumpa Warrior
2. Objective
Halo: Reach has drifted towards being very slayer dominant. What I mean by this is that no matter what the gametype, most players will have a primary focus on getting kills and a secondary or even tertiary focus on getting the objective. Point being, the core focus of objective gametypes has been lost between Halo 3 and Reach.
I would say that 75% of my objective games turn into a bloodbath, with nether team making strong attempts towards the objective. Yes, there is almost always that ruffgonja-ing kid, who rushes the objective countless times, but I mean a full push as a team. Why go for a flag or capture a territory when you can sit nearby with your tank and destroy everyone? The reason players go for kills is because they are rewarded with each one they get. Every time you get a snipe, headshot, beatdown, assist, spree or multikill, a number pops up in the bottom corner saying something like, "+8cR." There is not a single reward for scoring the objective, aside from feeling good about yourself. Agreed, and don't forget about K/D padding. I'd say it's the main reason objective games usually go on a lot longer than they should.
Posted by: Wumpa Warrior
So how can we reward people who go for objectives (as well as give people incentive to go for objectives)? It's simple:
1. Objective Daily and Weekly Challenges: Right now, challeges basically involve 3 things: kills, assists, and campaign mission completion. Nothing relating to objectives. If we have more objective challenges with large cR rewards, people will go for objectives. Such as:
a. Flagtacular!: Capture 3 flags today in multiplayer matchmaking (1200 cR).
b. Get Off My Cloud!: Rack up 200 points in KOTH gametypes today in multiplayer matchmaking (1000 cR).
c. Lawsuit: Detonate 3 bombs today in Assault gametypes in multiplayer matchmaking (1500 cR)
-If you believe that challenges don't affect gameplay just pay attention to whenever there is a jetpack multiplayer challenge, because most people use jetpacks during those games.
2. Objective Commendations: These of course are very similar to the challenges but they are long term so that even if there isn't a challenge, people will still go for objectives because they are consistently rewarded for it. Examples include:
a. Poor Yorick: Get Points in Oddball or Headhunter
b. Conquistador: Capture Territories in Territories
c. Star Spangled Banner: Capture Flags in CTF or StockpileGreat ideas.
Posted by: Wumpa Warrior
5. Remakes
Remaking a map works well between some games. It really does. Between Midship and Heretic, yes there was some change, but it still felt like Midship to me. That's because there were not many changes in core mechanics between Halo 2 and 3. Remakes almost never work, because of the diversity of sandboxes between games.Disagreed. Have you played the CE: Anniversary maps? They're excellent, even on non-Anniversary gametype settings. Haven't heard any significant complaints about them. A good map is a good map, and a bad map is a bad map. Unless I'm wrong about the Anniversary maps qualifying as "remakes".
Posted by: Wumpa Warrior
The open style of some maps worked great for Halo 1/2/3. But the BR/pistol did not have any of the range of the DMR. An open map generally played well back in the day. However, given the DMR, any open map with little cover instantly becomes a standstill. Players rarely go through the middle of the map, and those that do get slaughtered. When players cant use the middles of the map for infantry movement, the games, especially objective, become stagnant.Do you play much BTB? Yes, running recklessly out in the open will probably get you killed if you have no back up. I think that's how it should be. You have to be cautious and use your brain a little. But on a number of occasions, after managing to destroy the enemy's Wraith and kill off their sniper, the Wraith will spawn back on our side of the map, and we'll find it completely necessary to charge up the middle to the enemy's base; infantry, Wraith, and all; take out any stragglers, and pretty much take the map. And by "we", I usually mean me; a few friends of mine, and then a bunch of randoms.